These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

[Summit] State of Balance

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ali Aras
Nobody in Local
Deepwater Hooligans
#1 - 2013-08-20 20:11:00 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Dolan
Thread for thoughts, comments, etc on EVE balance and the State of Balance summit session. Let us know if there's any questions you want asked or any general things you'd like us to bring up and focus on.

http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog
cearaen
Plus 10 NV
#2 - 2013-08-20 22:01:43 UTC  |  Edited by: cearaen
I posted a seperate thread about off grid boosting here for more indepth information:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=270970&find=unread

But one specific question is whether the link boost amounts they are proposing are considered balanced now, or only will be considered balanced after they are forced on grid?

Thanks for your efforts.

Edit: It seems some of the misunderstanding regarding ccp rise was addressed by ccp fozzie. I would still love to see csm follow up on this to make sure it remains a priority.
Cade Windstalker
#3 - 2013-08-21 04:37:38 UTC
There's been a lot of discussion recently on Super Capitals and capital balance in general, some thoughts from CCP on what their overall vision for capital balance is and where they want to take it would be great to get the ball rolling since this isn't going to be quick iterations like with the various sub-cap hull types.

Two fairly good recent posts (I don't fully agree with either of them but I think they make good points):

http://themittani.com/features/counterpoint-dont-break-supercaps-fix-sub-caps

http://themittani.com/features/james-315-how-fix-supercaps
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery
RAZOR Alliance
#4 - 2013-08-21 22:02:26 UTC
Theres been a bit of an effort to stop 'instalocking' gatecamps with the RSB nerf. Im wondering if instalocking legions/loki are viewed as a problem? Currently you can use the scan res sub, sensor boosters and armor tank your loki or legion to create an instalocking ship that is also capable of being rather heavy tackle, all without the use of remote sensor boosters. Park it at a gate and youll be able to catch most frigates without many problems. If this is viewed as a problem and not intentional game design, have you considered nerfing the scan res subsystem to something more conservative? Currently it stads at 15% per level which is a large factor in being able to make the ship so effective at gatecamping.

Also can you give any updates on changing ecm to something that isn't such a binary mechanic that scales absurdly the smaller the fight is?
Arik Alabel
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#5 - 2013-08-22 15:53:43 UTC
Viceorvirtue wrote:
Theres been a bit of an effort to stop 'instalocking' gatecamps with the RSB nerf. Im wondering if instalocking legions/loki are viewed as a problem? Currently you can use the scan res sub, sensor boosters and armor tank your loki or legion to create an instalocking ship that is also capable of being rather heavy tackle, all without the use of remote sensor boosters. Park it at a gate and youll be able to catch most frigates without many problems. If this is viewed as a problem and not intentional game design, have you considered nerfing the scan res subsystem to something more conservative? Currently it stads at 15% per level which is a large factor in being able to make the ship so effective at gatecamping.

Also can you give any updates on changing ecm to something that isn't such a binary mechanic that scales absurdly the smaller the fight is?


I second the scan res question.

I welcome the ECM question, but isn't that the way anything works when scaling from large engagements to small? If I point one ship in a sizable fleet engagement, I've disrupted 1 out of 50. If I point one ship in a small gang, I've disrupted 1 out of 5. Does that mean points scale absurdly?
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery
RAZOR Alliance
#6 - 2013-08-22 22:09:06 UTC
The issue with ecm is it can completely take someone out of a fight unless that person has fof missiles (unreliable and unapplicable unless you are in a missileboat) leaving their only recourse drones/smartbombs. Additionally if I know im fighting 3-5 people and I have the chance to bring a blackbird or falcon it becomes extreamely difficult to see a reason not to.

The ability to essentially remove a player from a fight is too powerful on such a small scale. Jam 3 out of 5 people (which isnt difficult even with bad skills) and you are essentialy now fighting 2 people with 3 others who likely cant do much in the way of piloting to compensate for being jammed. Damps can force you to get closer, tds can do much the same, tps make you easier to hit, but jams prevent you from really fighting in the vast majority of ships.

Im merely trying to express that jams are a frustrating mechanic that scales horribly as an effect (not being able to fire weapons essentially) while not only being a binary on/off chance of working based on sensor str but additionally theres no true way to pilot around it.

Damps and tds make more sense in terms of balance because there is something you can do outside of fitting/implants to do to continue the fight instead of being locked out for 20 seconds.
Matt Grav
Wrath of the Pea
#7 - 2013-08-23 16:03:12 UTC
What about if the ecm activation/process itself left the source ship/drone target-able. So you'd always have the ability to shoot the ecm drones or ship projecting it. You wouldn't be able to lock any other targets but at least you'd have a chance to attack what ever has got you locked down.

I feel that there are still some balance problems being caused by the ongoing ship changes but that will get better as the role out across the classes continues.

I'd love to see 'off grid boosting' become 'on grid boosting', just so I could tell better what I was getting myself into.
Leskit
Pure Victory
#8 - 2013-08-25 03:33:18 UTC
The forum interface ate my post, so here's round two:

I'd like to see more oversight on the ship and module balancing, whether coming from within CCP, or the CSM (preferred). When someone has to do a complete second balance pass, that's not a good sign (gal bs's, industrials, hacs come to mind). You as the CSM have a great wealth of experience and knowledge with these ships, what they need, what may or may not be good for that race/hull/weapon platfor/etc. Get CCP to actually listen more actively to your input. There's been some good balancing on the t1 crusiers and frigs, but after that it's been...sketchy. Having to go back and re-do those hulls wastes time, money, energy, development potential...you get the idea. It also erodes the trust and faith that the player base has in the balancers/company, and doubt the devs feel good about being chewed out and rejected by the players (NO, i'm not approaching this from a pansy, namby-pamby, "everyone has to feel good!" perspective. An employee who feels valued is more efficient and productive.)

Direct question: medium beam lasers now out-dps medium pulse lasers except for short range t2 ammo (1-5% difference there). Is that what's wanted? My post with numbers is on page 19 of that thread.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#9 - 2013-08-25 04:58:42 UTC
Leskit wrote:
When someone has to do a complete second balance pass, that's not a good sign


That second pass is the oversight you're talking about. It's an example of the balancing team taking onboard feedback from the community.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Leskit
Pure Victory
#10 - 2013-08-25 06:00:26 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Leskit wrote:
When someone has to do a complete second balance pass, that's not a good sign


That second pass is the oversight you're talking about. It's an example of the balancing team taking onboard feedback from the community.


I stand corrected!
I worded that poorly. The second pass is a good thing. The continued need for them is less than stellar, but being willing to do them is great. They're not required to do them at all so it's definitely moving in the right direction. It just makes the player base wonder if they play the same game we do when some rotten stuff gets through, which admittedly, does happen now and then.
Roffle Roffle
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#11 - 2013-08-26 00:36:27 UTC
The link nerf is upon is, and it has turned out to not actually be a nerf. When is the real one?
Cade Windstalker
#12 - 2013-08-26 02:26:58 UTC
Leskit wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Leskit wrote:
When someone has to do a complete second balance pass, that's not a good sign


That second pass is the oversight you're talking about. It's an example of the balancing team taking onboard feedback from the community.


I stand corrected!
I worded that poorly. The second pass is a good thing. The continued need for them is less than stellar, but being willing to do them is great. They're not required to do them at all so it's definitely moving in the right direction. It just makes the player base wonder if they play the same game we do when some rotten stuff gets through, which admittedly, does happen now and then.


If you can reliably turn out release grade first pass content then I'm sure CCP would like to hire you. Or possibly dissect you because that probably means you're a time traveler or an alien =P

CCP very much plays the game, if you haven't noticed from the Features and Ideas board people who play the game produce absolutely HORRIBLE ideas on a very regular basis. CCP at least has a process for community feedback and design input which means these things get caught and dealt with before they hit release. Not everyone is going to be happy with every change or idea, but that's just life.
Cade Windstalker
#13 - 2013-08-26 02:30:58 UTC
Oh yeah, we'd also like to hear something about where they're planning on going with the pirate ships. Some of them are in a bit of a ridiculous spot as far as balance goes (Vindi, Cynabal, Machariel, and Nightmare all come to mind) where they're essentially completely overshadowing one or more other ships. The Vagabond has already been pointed out as one instance of this and the various Marauders are almost completely overshadowed by Pirate Battleships in a number of ways.

Since these are popular ship giving the community time to get the reflexive rage out of their systems at any sort of proposed nerf ahead of the actual changes would let actual discussion commence sooner Blink
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#14 - 2013-08-26 07:40:51 UTC
Yeah I think they'd go with the dissection thing.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Cade Windstalker
#15 - 2013-08-26 08:39:34 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Yeah I think they'd go with the dissection thing.


Well of course, it's the only logical thing to do and hey, it might make the game better!Big smile
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2013-08-26 19:47:15 UTC
I am wondering what the state of drones are?
Are they due for a complete overhaul?
Are they only in need of minor tweaks?

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Seolfor
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#17 - 2013-08-27 04:33:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Seolfor
When and what are they going to do with the Pirate line of ships - Frigates, Cruisers, Battleships.

- Is a pirate BC on the near term cards?

- Where in the power curve of T1, Navy, T2 do the Pirate ships of a class intended to fit?

- Is limited supply the only balancing factor (i.e. limited supply, high demand due to high power, leading to high isk cost and hence the perceived balance of 'you get what you pay for')

Pirate Frigates:

- Dram nerf went too far, will we ever see the Dram of old?

- In years of low-sec/high sec living ive not really seen a pirate frig other than DDevil and Dram, whats the plan?

Overall: Pirate ships getting unusual bonuses (e.g. Web Range) that the T1, Navy, T2 ships in-class don't, seems to be a good flavor, but is that the intended continuing direction?
Mashie Saldana
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#18 - 2013-08-27 10:46:25 UTC
How about tweaking FoF missiles to anti EWAR missiles. As in they will randomly hit anything that has some EWAR applied to your ship (a bit similar to radar homing missiles used to knock out radar installations).

Things they would try to hit to hit:

Sensor damps
ECM
Target painting
Tracking disruptors

If the effect is applied by a ship module hit the ship, if the effect is from a drone hit the drone.

How to win EVE
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#19 - 2013-08-27 12:56:20 UTC
Should have rebalanced armor/shield, weapons, ammo and drones before going into balancing ships

Doing it all back and forth really fucks things up and leads to things that don't make sense at all.. Like nerfing HML's (Which was excellent) and then buffing all other LR weapons to the powerlevel the HML's used to have.

I think the link balance wasn't harsh enough. A vengeance with links can still solo 2 vengs without links quite easily. Also the weapons timer thing really really needs to happen.

Attack BC's need to be made more niche.. My suggestion would be a tracking penalty.

All amarr ships below BC need to get a second balance pass. There is the occasional one that is alright but generally they are all just pretty meh. The entire design philosophy behind them is counter productive imo. They have bad tracking, cap issues and if tanked properly speed issues and they generally don't have the midslots to make up for that.


And lastly the fitting difference between long range and short range weapons needs to be lesser in many cases. Imo you need to sacrifice way too much for the extra range. Tracking should be enough of a penalty for range.

T2 short range ammo should get penalties as harsh as t2 long range ammo in relation to the bonus they give. Aurora has a 80% range bonus but a 75% tracking penalty while scorch has a 50% range bonus and a 25% tracking penalty. Should be 50/45 or something like that.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Danny John-Peter
The Congregation
RAPID HEAVY ROPERS
#20 - 2013-08-27 13:47:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Danny John-Peter
Med (maybe small, don't really use em) ACs could probably use a look in, they fair pretty badly these days against both Blasters and Pulse having extremely poor damage at range and mediocre tracking.

I'm unsure weather this a weakness of ACs, ship bonuses (double range bonuses needed Ala cerb?) or maybe barrage needs a bit of work (lets be honest when you compare it to null and, particularly, scorch it pales).

Also, give the Rifter some love, make it viable.
123Next page